|Publication number||US7504942 B2|
|Application number||US 11/348,633|
|Publication date||Mar 17, 2009|
|Filing date||Feb 6, 2006|
|Priority date||Feb 6, 2006|
|Also published as||US20070182540|
|Publication number||11348633, 348633, US 7504942 B2, US 7504942B2, US-B2-7504942, US7504942 B2, US7504942B2|
|Inventors||Douglas H. Marman|
|Original Assignee||Videoiq, Inc.|
|Export Citation||BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan|
|Patent Citations (27), Non-Patent Citations (4), Referenced by (43), Classifications (18), Legal Events (7)|
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet|
The disclosed technology relates to methods and systems regarding security monitoring and alarm system technology.
For years, security systems have employed video cameras and video processors that can perform some type of motion detection by watching for motion in a scene, generally by looking at differences between a current video frame and a previous video frame. If motion or motion exceeding a predetermined threshold is detected, an event is recognized. This event could create an alarm condition or trigger other actions, such as speeding up the capturing of images from the associated camera or storing captured images at a higher resolution or faster frame rate. Some security systems can be configured to distinguish different portions of the scene such that motion in some portions is considered more important than in other portions.
False alarms have become a significant drain on resources for police departments. More than 90% of all alarms sent to central alarm monitoring stations are false alarms. Moreover, more than 90% of all alarms sent to police departments are false alarms, and a significant portion of these false alarms were first screened by central alarm monitoring stations.
Some existing systems have video cameras mounted at both entries and exits to capture images of people entering and leaving the premises. Some of these systems or other systems may require that a camera be mounted on a door itself along with some type of sensor such as a doorknob sensor.
Current systems that have some type of visual verification do not perform any type of recognition at the premises but, rather, send video images to a remote central monitoring station for verification of alarms.
Certain existing alarm systems have motion detection techniques that involve the direct comparison of frames to detect motion and classify detected objects in the scene. In some of these systems, an alarm is only sent if the object is determined to be a human. Screening video based simply on whether detected motion is based on a certain class of objects (e.g., screening for humans) does not significantly reduce false alarms, if at all, because nearly all false alarms are caused by humans.
Described herein are exemplary methods and systems for performing local verification in security monitoring applications. One advantage of using the described local verification approach is a reduced number of false alarms. Another advantage is the increased efficiency that comes with a system that performs verification on the premises before sending any information to a central monitoring station. The suppression of image information (e.g., video) to be transmitted for remote viewing in situations where such video need not be viewed by a third party (e.g., when an event is false) provides system users (e.g., homeowners) with the additional advantage of privacy.
In one embodiment, a security monitoring system includes a remote system and a local system, the local system being located at the premises being monitored. The local system includes cameras or other image capture devices to capture images of objects (e.g., video), a database that stores image templates corresponding to humans that are authorized to be on the premises, and a video processing system that can determine whether the object is human and, if so, can perform a visual verification by comparing the captured images with the image templates stored in the database. If a positive match occurs, then the object is deemed a human authorized to be on the premises and any alarm event indication is suppressed. If there is no positive match, however, or if no comparison can be made, a prioritization level is determined and transmitted along with the video clip to the remote system for further analysis. The remote system includes an image database that stores images of people authorized to be on the premises such that the image templates used by the local system do not need to be transmitted to the remote system.
In another embodiment, a method of reducing false alarms in a security monitoring system monitoring a location remote from a central monitoring system, where a communications link exists between the two systems, includes detecting a conditional alarm-generating event based on presence of an object at a premises associated with the monitored location. The exemplary method also includes capturing image data corresponding to the object and determining at the monitored location whether the object is authorized, based on a comparison between the captured image data and electronically stored templates. If a positive match results from the comparison, an alarm event notification to a remote system is suppressed.
In yet another embodiment, a verification module of a local component of a security system configured to communicate with a remote component includes an electronic circuit with a processor operable to perform a verification based on a comparison of at least one image of a monitored local scene and stored reference data. The verification module determines autonomously whether to indicate an alarm event. Based on the comparison results, if the image is determined not to match the reference data, an alarm event is recognized and the local component communicates the alarm event to the remote component. If the at least one image is determined to match the reference data, however, an alarm event is not recognized and no alarm event communication to the remote component occurs.
The foregoing and other features and advantages will become more apparent from the following detailed description, which proceeds with reference to the accompanying figures.
Described below are embodiments of a security system and methods in which visual verification of events occurring at a monitored scene at a first location takes place prior to triggering an alarm event at a remote system at a second location. In described embodiments, the visual verification is accomplished using electronic video surveillance equipment. In described embodiments, the visual verification can be configured to take place autonomously without active participation by operators at the first location or second location. In described embodiments, the verification typically involves the use of image information, e.g., visual information such as video, although other types of information (e.g., audio information) can also be used. In some embodiments, the image information can be infrared image information.
If visual verification of an event at a monitored scene is initiated, possibly in response to a sensed condition, the system evaluates whether the monitored scene exhibits characteristics of an alarm event, e.g., the system can evaluate scene changes. In described embodiments, the system evaluates whether object(s) in the monitored scene correspond to or are sufficiently similar to authorized objects (e.g., persons and/or pets authorized to be present at the first location).
This evaluation includes comparison with stored representations of such authorized objects, e.g., templates. If the comparison shows that the object(s) correspond to or are sufficiently similar to authorized objects, and thus the object(s) is considered authorized, no alarm event is triggered. If, however, the visual verification fails or is inconclusive, the remote system can communicate an alarm event indication to the remote system.
In some embodiments, the remote system subjects the alarm event conditions at the first location to further review or validation, such as, e.g., by an operator. Conveniently, the local system can be configured to provide one or more images and/or other information (e.g., the closest templates) to assist in validating the alarm event. Thus, many false alarms initiated by authorized objects can be addressed before involving the remote system. In addition, some alarm events are communicated quickly and more accurately because additional alarm event conditions information (e.g., video clips, closest match-ups, etc.) can be provided.
The local system 120 has multiple cameras 102A-102N, multiple alarm Sensors 104A-104N, an optional microphone 106 and speaker 107, and an image processing unit, such as a video processing unit 108. Image-capturing devices other than cameras can be used in place of, or in addition to, the cameras 102A-102N.
The alarm sensors 104A-104N can be, for example, typical motion detectors or door and window sensors. In this example, the sensors 104A-104N are motion sensors that are each mounted with the cameras 102A-102N, respectively, in pairs. Each camera/sensor pair can be mounted in a single housing to facilitate and expedite the processing of video images from a particular camera upon the detection of motion by the corresponding sensor. The number of cameras and/or sensors, as well as their arrangement within a system, however, can all vary greatly.
In certain embodiments of the disclosed technology, cameras can be mounted either just inside or just outside doors to the premises (e.g., a home). In arrangements where the cameras are mounted inside the doorway, they are typically aimed at the door itself to capture images of people's faces upon entry through the doorway. In arrangements where the cameras are mounted outside the doorway, they are typically mounted near the doorbell to capture images of the faces of those approaching the door. These cameras can also see people leaving through the doorway though their faces might not be in full view. Cameras mounted near the doorbell also generally provide for easier wiring of power and communication lines to the cameras. It is desirable that the cameras have a wide dynamic range so that they can provide good images for the video processing unit 108 even if there is a bright light behind a person approaching a door if the camera is on the outside or, if the camera is on the inside, when the door opens.
The cameras do not need to be mounted both inside and outside a door because, for example, the video recognition system described herein can recognize people by their appearance and not just their faces. For example, the local system 120 of
The cameras do not need to be mounted on a door itself. This is advantageous because providing electrical power for a camera at the location of the door is usually difficult.
The local system 120 can be configured to begin processing of video images after the occurrence of a sensed condition (e.g., upon the tripping of a door or window sensor). In other embodiments, a camera itself can recognize motion or the opening and/or closing of windows and doors by itself without external sensors. In other embodiments, processing of video images occurs regardless of any sensed conditions.
If a positive match is found at 206, the object has been identified as a human considered to be authorized, so any alarm event indication is suppressed. A positive match does not require an identical match but is understood to include a reasonable match, which can be set according to the specific operating characteristics. In some embodiments, a threshold can be set for determination of whether a match should be considered positive. If no match is found, however, or if the system is unsure, an alarm event is recognized. The multiple images in an image clip may show one or more of a scene before an alarm event, a scene during an alarm event, or a scene after an alarm event. According to one approach, a prioritization level is generated, as shown at 210.
The prioritization level is transmitted with the captured video clip from the local system to the remote system, as shown at 212, such that an operator at a central monitoring facility, for example, can analyze the video clip to determine whether the alarm event is valid. If an object is unable to be subjected to a comparison (e.g., there are no templates corresponding to the object's type), a potential alarm event can be indicated to the remote system. In such a situation, review by security personnel would usually be desirable.
The video processing unit 108 of
The video processing unit 108 has the ability to distinguish humans from other forms of video motion, such as animals, changes in lighting, headlights, balloons floating in the air, and trees blowing in the wind. The video processing unit 108 can also distinguish one human from another by visual features such as hair color, height, clothing, etc. The video processing unit 108 can also use facial features commonly used in facial recognition systems.
When a person leaves through a door, the local system 120 can recognize that person by his or her features, such as clothing, hair, height, etc. If that person should re-enter the premises shortly afterward, he or she would be recognized and allowed to enter without the generation of an alarm. This eliminates another common cause of false alarms, such as when people go outside their house to get the mail or the newspaper and forget that their system is armed. Such a feature can be programmed such that anyone leaving their home is automatically allowed back in within a preset period of time. That time period could be e.g., a whole day or a much more limited time (e.g., 15 minutes).
Another advantageous feature of the disclosed technology is the ability to recognize a person more accurately with facial recognition or by other biometric features that do not change with clothing or hair style. The local system 120 can store tokens or templates of data (e.g., in the image template database 110) that represent the person's biometric features, such as facial features, for all people authorized to enter the premises. When a person is seen entering or leaving through one of the doors to the premises, their images can be reduced to a token or template by the video processing engine, which then compares it to those in the image template database 110 that correspond to authorized people. If an appropriate match is obtained, then the likelihood of an alarm is low but further verification might still be desired before the alarm is ignored. For example, the person can still be required to enter their passcode at a keypad. His or her passcode can then be compared to the image of the person authorized to use that passcode. The local system 120 can have a locking system that only opens with the proper access control card being presented to a reader. This could also identify the person opening the door. Therefore, the facial recognition might only verify the person entering, or it might be used as the only means of recognition, for example in homes where only a few people are authorized and the system is capable of accurately recognizing those few.
The video processing unit 108 screens out and suppresses false alarms that Might otherwise be transmitted to the remote system 150. Thus, it can be determined at the premises whether an alarm event is potentially valid or false and, if the alarm event is determined to be false, an alarm is not ultimately generated. In situations, however, where the alarm event is determined to be real or the video processing unit 108 is uncertain, the captured video clip can be transmitted to the remote system 150, in some embodiments, with a prioritization level. Such a prioritization level is generally based upon predetermined criteria and usually includes a brief description of what a user (e.g., a security guard) at the remote system should consider in reviewing the transmitted information. The prioritization level based on such criteria may comprise a representation of a degree of difference between an image of the person (or object) and a template corresponding to an authorized person (or object). The prioritization level can help such a user rank the most likely alarm events as a higher priority for response as opposed to alarm events that appear to be less likely to be valid. For example, an unknown intruder might have a high priority whereas a door opening with no people present might warrant someone inspecting the situation but not on an immediate basis.
When the video processing unit 108 is unable to adequately match the captured images with the stored image templates, it can transmit a captured video clip of the person along with a list of possible matches. Such a list generally represents the best possible matches. Optionally, the remote system 150 can include an image database 152 that stores images of people that are authorized to be on the premises, in which case the image templates used at the local system 120 do not need to be sent to the remote system 150 each time video clips are transmitted for review. For example, names of authorized people that appear to be similar to the intruder can be sent to the remote system 150 and images corresponding to those names can be retrieved from the image database 152 and displayed (e.g., using a monitor 154) along with the transmitted video clip to allow for a user of the remote system to compare the images to the video clip. This method is advantageous because it reduces the amount of data to be transmitted from the local system 120 to the remote system 150 and it reduces the number of authorized people to be compared to the transmitted video clip. This is important in situations where there is a large list of people authorized to be on the premises. This method also provides for increased transmission speed, which can be significant in setups where communication takes place via a dialup connection.
In one example, in which door switches are used, video images are processed upon the opening of the door to see if someone was walking toward the door from the inside (if the camera is inside) or walking toward the door from the outside (if the camera is outside) before the door opened. The system can also analyze the video to determine whether someone was inside or outside the doorway after the door closed again.
In another example, in which motion detectors are used, video images are processed upon the detection of motion in the field of view, including the door, to see whether the first motion was the opening of the door or a person approaching the door. Instead of an external motion detector, a video camera whose images are being processed continuously can recognize motion to trigger detection of motion in the field of view. When a person is seen to be leaving the home or premises, any alarms that might normally be generated by the door opening or the motion sensors can be ignored. This eliminates a common cause of false alarms. The local system 120 can recognize the difference between animals, such as pets, and human beings or other common causes of video motion, such as lights and shadows. This is advantageous because, for example, stray light (e.g., headlights from a passing car or sunlight that is intermittently blocked by clouds) shining through the window could give an appearance that someone was on the inside near the door, if only simple video motion detection was used.
If all of the entryways to a premises are being monitored, a count of people entering and leaving can be kept. Thus, the local system 120 can keep track of when everyone has left the premises or whether someone is still on the premises. When everyone has left, the local system 120 can respond differently to intruders than if someone is still present. For example, if everyone has left then, except for people coming in through one of the entryways, no person should be detected indoors. If a person is detected indoors after everyone has left but no one came in through any of the entryways, then the local system 120 can determine this to be a break-in. However, if someone comes in through a door, or even if they approach a door from the outside, and someone is still home or on the premises, then the local system 120 might announce this by ringing a bell or sounding a buzzer to alert the person inside that someone is approaching or has just entered the house or premises. For example, a small store might ring a bell in the back to alert someone that a person has entered the front door, but if the last person has left for the day, then such an event would trigger an alarm.
Another advantageous feature that can significantly reduce the number of false alarms is the use in the system of an optional automated voice response function that can be performed in real-time. If someone enters the premises and the system is not sure whether this person is authorized, a prerecorded message can be played for the intruder. For example, the message might say: “Hello. This is the Protective Alarm Monitoring Center. Please state your name, followed by your passcode.” The system then records any audio responses (e.g., using a microphone 106). In one configuration, the local system 120 simply records this response and sends it in with any alarm data and/or video data of the intruder that are transmitted to the remote system 150. The remote system 150 can use this information to facilitate verification of the alarm, saving the monitoring operator from having to call back the premises after an alarm has been received to verify it. In many cases, it is not feasible or even possible for an operator to call back after an alarm has been received because either someone is on the phone or the alarm system itself is occupying the phone line by sending more data, such as video data.
Another advantageous feature of the disclosed technology is the ability to perform voice pattern matching, or voice recognition, with use of a voice processing system to match the voice of the responder to a database of stored templates or voice tokens for authorized people. This can be compared to both the video templates stored and/or the passcode the person called out. This audio enunciation and listening can take place through a speaker (e.g., speaker 107 of
Automated voice recognition further reduces alarms from being sent to central monitoring stations when they are false and makes a self-monitoring system even more practical. The functions of central monitoring stations to call back the premises after every alarm would be accomplished automatically before the alarm was even generated. This also saves embarrassing situations with the end-users who often accidentally cause false alarms. The local system 120, if unsure about a response (e.g., due to the lack of an appropriate match with what is stored in the database for authorized people), can also initiate further questions to facilitate verification. For example, the system could ask the person's birthday or middle name, providing more information for the voice recognition system to better identify him or her. This provides a significant deterrent to potential intruders since the local system 120 will be recording their images and voices. The local system 120 thus provides the additional benefit that it puts less pressure on a person to get their code right and to enter it within a limited time.
One configuration of the disclosed technology can eliminate the need for a keypad for the entering of codes to disarm the alarm system by using just video recognition, with audio recognition as a backup in situations where uncertainty exists. The person's clothing can be matched with what the person wore to work that day, for example. Alternatively, the person can use a keyfob transmitter to disarm the system with the touch of a button, and video recognition can be used to verify the person using the fob since each fob has a unique address.
With the exemplary system described herein, people can leave their home to go outside and get their newspaper or the mail, or go for a walk, and not have the worry about arming or disarming the system since the system would automatically remember their appearance as they left and know whether or not the premises is empty. Since a common cause of security system discontinuance is due to inconvenience and another common cause is the trouble with false alarms caused by inaccurately entering of the disarm code in the allotted time, the disclosed technology provides a much greater ease of use and improved protection to the person using it, while reducing false alarm signals and time spent at both central monitoring stations and the police force.
In view of the many possible embodiments to which the principles of the disclosed systems and methods may be applied, it should be recognized that the illustrated embodiments are only preferred examples and should not be taken as limiting in scope. Rather, the scope is defined by the following claims and all that comes within their scope and spirit.
|Cited Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US4161750||Mar 10, 1978||Jul 17, 1979||Robert Bosch Gmbh||Video alarm systems|
|US4257063||Mar 23, 1979||Mar 17, 1981||Ham Industries, Inc.||Video monitoring system and method|
|US4679077 *||Nov 1, 1985||Jul 7, 1987||Matsushita Electric Works, Ltd.||Visual Image sensor system|
|US5091780 *||May 9, 1990||Feb 25, 1992||Carnegie-Mellon University||A trainable security system emthod for the same|
|US5289275||Jul 10, 1992||Feb 22, 1994||Hochiki Kabushiki Kaisha||Surveillance monitor system using image processing for monitoring fires and thefts|
|US5715325 *||Aug 30, 1995||Feb 3, 1998||Siemens Corporate Research, Inc.||Apparatus and method for detecting a face in a video image|
|US5838839||Jun 28, 1996||Nov 17, 1998||Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha||Image recognition method|
|US5847755||Dec 11, 1996||Dec 8, 1998||Sarnoff Corporation||Method and apparatus for detecting object movement within an image sequence|
|US5870471||Nov 27, 1996||Feb 9, 1999||Esco Electronics Corporation||Authentication algorithms for video images|
|US5937092||Dec 23, 1996||Aug 10, 1999||Esco Electronics||Rejection of light intrusion false alarms in a video security system|
|US5956424||Dec 23, 1996||Sep 21, 1999||Esco Electronics Corporation||Low false alarm rate detection for a video image processing based security alarm system|
|US6069655||Aug 1, 1997||May 30, 2000||Wells Fargo Alarm Services, Inc.||Advanced video security system|
|US6081606||Jun 17, 1996||Jun 27, 2000||Sarnoff Corporation||Apparatus and a method for detecting motion within an image sequence|
|US6091771||Aug 1, 1997||Jul 18, 2000||Wells Fargo Alarm Services, Inc.||Workstation for video security system|
|US6097429||Aug 1, 1997||Aug 1, 2000||Esco Electronics Corporation||Site control unit for video security system|
|US6104831||Dec 10, 1998||Aug 15, 2000||Esco Electronics Corporation||Method for rejection of flickering lights in an imaging system|
|US6317152||Jul 17, 1999||Nov 13, 2001||Esco Electronics Corporation||Digital video recording system|
|US6392704||Nov 7, 1997||May 21, 2002||Esco Electronics Corporation||Compact video processing system for remote sensing applications|
|US6411209||Dec 6, 2000||Jun 25, 2002||Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.||Method and apparatus to select the best video frame to transmit to a remote station for CCTV based residential security monitoring|
|US6618074||Aug 1, 1997||Sep 9, 2003||Wells Fargo Alarm Systems, Inc.||Central alarm computer for video security system|
|US6700487||May 6, 2002||Mar 2, 2004||Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.||Method and apparatus to select the best video frame to transmit to a remote station for CCTV based residential security monitoring|
|US6744462||Dec 12, 2000||Jun 1, 2004||Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.||Apparatus and methods for resolution of entry/exit conflicts for security monitoring systems|
|US7176440 *||Jun 19, 2003||Feb 13, 2007||Honeywell International Inc.||Method and apparatus for detecting objects using structured light patterns|
|US20020070858||Dec 12, 2000||Jun 13, 2002||Philips Electronics North America Corporation||Placement of camera in door for face recognition-based security systems|
|US20020071032||Dec 12, 2000||Jun 13, 2002||Philips Electronics North America Corporation||Method and apparatus to reduce false alarms in exit/entrance situations for residential security monitoring|
|US20050002572||Jul 1, 2004||Jan 6, 2005||General Electric Company||Methods and systems for detecting objects of interest in spatio-temporal signals|
|US20050198063 *||Apr 25, 2005||Sep 8, 2005||Thomas C. D.||Methods for remote monitoring and control of appliances over a computer network|
|1||"Sarnoff Video Detection & Tracking, Video Technologies," Sarnoff Corporation, 1999.|
|2||Bodor et al., "Vision-based human tracking and activity recognition," in Proc. of the 11th Mediterranean Conf. on Control and Automation, Jun. 2003.|
|3||Mahalanobis et al., "Network video image processing for security, surveillance, and situational awareness," Enabling Photonic Technologies for Aerospace Applications VI. Edited by Pirich, Andrew R.; Hayduk, Michael J.; Donkor, Eric. Proceedings of the SPIE, vol. 5440, pp. 1-8 (2004).|
|4||Niu et al., "Human Activity Detection and Recognition for Video Surveillance," Proceedings of the IEEE Multimedia and Expo Conference, Taipei, Taiwan, 2004.|
|Citing Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US7916018 *||May 4, 2007||Mar 29, 2011||Honeywell International Inc.||Wireless door contact sensor with motion sensor disable|
|US8108055 *||Dec 28, 2007||Jan 31, 2012||Larry Wong||Method, system and apparatus for controlling an electrical device|
|US8233042 *||May 26, 2006||Jul 31, 2012||The Invention Science Fund I, Llc||Preservation and/or degradation of a video/audio data stream|
|US8253821||Aug 22, 2006||Aug 28, 2012||The Invention Science Fund I, Llc||Degradation/preservation management of captured data|
|US8428754||Dec 19, 2011||Apr 23, 2013||Larry Wong||Method, system and apparatus for controlling an electrical device|
|US8457879 *||Jun 12, 2008||Jun 4, 2013||Robert Bosch Gmbh||Information device, method for informing and/or navigating a person, and computer program|
|US8681225||Apr 3, 2006||Mar 25, 2014||Royce A. Levien||Storage access technique for captured data|
|US8913796 *||Jul 14, 2012||Dec 16, 2014||NL Giken Incorporated||Biometrics system, biologic information storage, and portable device|
|US8964054||Feb 1, 2007||Feb 24, 2015||The Invention Science Fund I, Llc||Capturing selected image objects|
|US9041826||Aug 18, 2006||May 26, 2015||The Invention Science Fund I, Llc||Capturing selected image objects|
|US9076208||Feb 28, 2006||Jul 7, 2015||The Invention Science Fund I, Llc||Imagery processing|
|US9082456||Jul 26, 2005||Jul 14, 2015||The Invention Science Fund I Llc||Shared image device designation|
|US9142108 *||Sep 1, 2011||Sep 22, 2015||Ecolink Intelligent Technology, Inc.||Security apparatus and method|
|US9158920 *||Jun 28, 2007||Oct 13, 2015||Intel Corporation||System and method for out-of-band assisted biometric secure boot|
|US9167195||Jun 16, 2006||Oct 20, 2015||Invention Science Fund I, Llc||Preservation/degradation of video/audio aspects of a data stream|
|US9191611||Nov 1, 2005||Nov 17, 2015||Invention Science Fund I, Llc||Conditional alteration of a saved image|
|US9235980||Jan 16, 2015||Jan 12, 2016||Tyco Safety Products Canada Ltd.||Method and apparatus for automatically disarming a security system|
|US20060274154 *||Apr 14, 2006||Dec 7, 2006||Searete, Lcc, A Limited Liability Corporation Of The State Of Delaware||Data storage usage protocol|
|US20060274165 *||Nov 1, 2005||Dec 7, 2006||Levien Royce A||Conditional alteration of a saved image|
|US20060279643 *||Apr 3, 2006||Dec 14, 2006||Searete Llc, A Limited Liability Corporation Of The State Of Delaware||Storage access technique for captured data|
|US20070008326 *||May 19, 2006||Jan 11, 2007||Searete Llc, A Limited Liability Corporation Of The State Of Delaware||Dual mode image capture technique|
|US20070040928 *||Aug 18, 2006||Feb 22, 2007||Searete Llc, A Limited Liability Corporation Of The State Of Delaware||Capturing selected image objects|
|US20070052856 *||Aug 25, 2006||Mar 8, 2007||Searete Llc, A Limited Liability Corporation Of The State Of Delaware.||Composite image selectivity|
|US20070097214 *||Jun 16, 2006||May 3, 2007||Searete Llc, A Limited Liability Corporation Of The State Of Delaware||Preservation/degradation of video/audio aspects of a data stream|
|US20070097215 *||Aug 22, 2006||May 3, 2007||Searete Llc, A Limited Liability Corporation Of The State Of Delaware||Degradation/preservation management of captured data|
|US20070098348 *||May 15, 2006||May 3, 2007||Searete Llc, A Limited Liability Corporation Of The State Of Delaware||Degradation/preservation management of captured data|
|US20070100860 *||May 26, 2006||May 3, 2007||Searete Llc, A Limited Liability Corporation Of The State Of Delaware||Preservation and/or degradation of a video/audio data stream|
|US20070109411 *||Oct 31, 2006||May 17, 2007||Searete Llc, A Limited Liability Corporation Of The State Of Delaware||Composite image selectivity|
|US20070120981 *||Nov 7, 2006||May 31, 2007||Searete Llc, A Limited Liability Corporation Of The State Of Delaware||Storage access technique for captured data|
|US20070139529 *||Dec 18, 2006||Jun 21, 2007||Searete Llc, A Limited Liability Corporation Of The State Of Delaware||Dual mode image capture technique|
|US20070200934 *||Feb 28, 2006||Aug 30, 2007||Searete Llc, A Limited Liability Corporation Of The State Of Delaware||Imagery processing|
|US20070222865 *||Jun 26, 2006||Sep 27, 2007||Searete Llc, A Limited Liability Corporation Of The State Of Delaware||Enhanced video/still image correlation|
|US20070274563 *||Jan 19, 2007||Nov 29, 2007||Searete Llc, A Limited Liability Corporation Of State Of Delaware||Capturing selected image objects|
|US20080043108 *||Feb 1, 2007||Feb 21, 2008||Searete Llc, A Limited Liability Corporation Of The State Of Delaware||Capturing selected image objects|
|US20080130958 *||Nov 30, 2006||Jun 5, 2008||Motorola, Inc.||Method and system for vision-based parameter adjustment|
|US20080157964 *||May 4, 2007||Jul 3, 2008||Eskildsen Kenneth G||Wireless door contact sensor with motion sensor disable|
|US20090006859 *||Jun 28, 2007||Jan 1, 2009||Zimmer Vincent J||System and method for out-of-band assisted biometric secure boot|
|US20090167493 *||Dec 31, 2008||Jul 2, 2009||Colciago Fabrizio||Video monitoring system|
|US20090171478 *||Dec 28, 2007||Jul 2, 2009||Larry Wong||Method, system and apparatus for controlling an electrical device|
|US20100153003 *||Jun 12, 2008||Jun 17, 2010||Marcel Merkel||Information device, method for informing and/or navigating a person, and computer program|
|US20120280785 *||Nov 8, 2012||NL Giken Incorporated||Biometrics System, Biologic Information Storage, and Portable Device|
|US20130057405 *||Mar 7, 2013||Ecolink Intelligent Technology, Inc.||Security apparatus and method|
|US20130067513 *||May 23, 2011||Mar 14, 2013||Rakuten, Inc.||Content output device, content output method, content output program, and recording medium having content output program recorded thereon|
|U.S. Classification||340/541, 348/161, 348/152, 382/118|
|Cooperative Classification||G06K9/00362, G06K9/00979, G06K9/00771, G07C9/00158, G08B25/008, G08B13/19697, G08B13/19686|
|European Classification||G08B25/00P, G08B13/196U4, G08B13/196Y, G06K9/00H, G06K9/00V4, G06K9/00Y1|
|May 16, 2006||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: GE SECURITY, INC., FLORIDA
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:MARMAN, DOUGLAS H.;REEL/FRAME:017624/0856
Effective date: 20051215
|Mar 6, 2007||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: BROAD REACH SECURITY LLC, MASSACHUSETTS
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:GE SECURITY, INC.;REEL/FRAME:018970/0447
Effective date: 20070228
|Apr 25, 2007||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: VIDEOIQ, INC., MASSACHUSETTS
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:BROAD REACH SECURITY LLC;REEL/FRAME:019208/0212
Effective date: 20070411
|Aug 28, 2012||FPAY||Fee payment|
Year of fee payment: 4
|Jan 5, 2015||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: AVO USA HOLDING 2 CORPORATION, MASSACHUSETTS
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:VIDEOIQ, INC.;REEL/FRAME:034636/0943
Effective date: 20141217
|Apr 8, 2015||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: HSBC BANK CANADA, CANADA
Free format text: SECURITY INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:AVO USA HOLDING 2 CORPORATION;REEL/FRAME:035360/0668
Effective date: 20150407
|Jan 6, 2016||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: AVIGILON PATENT HOLDING 2 CORPORATION, CANADA
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:AVO USA HOLDING 2 CORPORATION;REEL/FRAME:037425/0222
Effective date: 20151211